Something next to normal, that&#39;s the thing I&#39;d like to try

Yep, LMPTP was the first thing I thought of when

stormwreath suggested Giles. :) Although, in fairness, I think it's difficult to tell whether Giles tries to make decisions for Buffy because she's a woman or because she's his "child." It's probably more telling to look at how he treats other women (particularly ones his own age, like Jenny, Olivia, and Joyce).

From:

This. Giles making decisions for Buffy in seasons 1 through 3 isn't him being anti-feminist, it's him acting as the surrogate parent of a teenager. But even so, it seems to me that he usually tries to teach her how to take on an independent role, supporting her judgement with suggestions and more information rather than simply tell her what to do. That was Wesley's approach in S3, and look how far it got him... By the later seasons Giles has definitly become Exposition Guy while acknowedging Buffy as the leader.

And yes, Lies My Parents Told Me would be the episode where, as I said in my post, you can point to it and say " Aha! What about when they did such-and-such in episode blah-di-blah? Not very feminist there, were they? So much for your so-called icon!" :-)

I'd say a feminist man is one who's perfectly happy to accept a woman's leadership if she's a better leader than him - but equally, to not hesitate to take the lead himself if he honestly thinks he's a better leader than her. To do otherwise would be patronising. ;-)

From:

angearia.livejournal.com

Hmm, I understand kinda the way Giles would view Buffy as his child. I mean that's obvious. But then you have the fact that she's his Slayer first and foremost. Which means his job is to train his "child" to kill demons. To have faith in her abilities to save the world.

Infantilizing her runs counter to this goal. And the only reason I see to do it is because she can't be trusted with such a huge responsibility. Maybe he does it out of ageism. She's too inexperienced and he wants to protect her.

But isn't sexism also about men treating adult women as children? The very fact that Giles still refuses to see Buffy as an adult in S7 undermines his growth. He spends a large part of that season undermining her authority and questioning her judgment. She's 22 at the time, lives on her own, has her own job and is raising a teenager.

It'd be one thing if he actually had memories of her as an infant/toddler/squishy vulnerable tiny person, but from the moment Giles met her, Buffy was nearly an adult. So for his POV to insist that she's still a child remains problematic to me. With Joyce, I'd better understand. But by Season 4/5 Joyce was showing more consistent faith in Buffy's judgment imo.

Even Giles removing himself to go to England was a sign he didn't trust her judgment. He decided for her that she needed to grow up, so he was going to stop "standing in the way."

She's an adult and he doesn't treat her as such. And while he might love her like a daughter, I don't think their relationship means he has the behavioral patterns that require he treat her like a daughter-child instead of a daughter-adult. So basically, his paternalism goes on too long (treating her like an inexperienced flighty child when she's clearly proved she's anything but) and begins to read interesect with sexism.

TL;DR :P

Edited Date: Aug. 1st, 2010 12:50 am (UTC)

From:

Heh, I largely agree with you. :)

I think protectiveness is a big part of it. The fact that Buffy's the Slayer makes that worse than any other child, because he knows that eventually he'll lose her (and after season 5, already has). I don't think he's infantilizing her so much as being afraid to face the reality of their relationship. (Of course, you could possibly argue that if he had faith in her slayer abilities, he wouldn't be afraid of her dying.)

But isn't sexism also about men treating adult women as children? The very fact that Giles still refuses to see Buffy as an adult in S7 undermines his growth.

True. Although I think he's pretty respectful of Willow's autonomy in S7, and arguably, he has more reason to be concerned about Willow's decision-making skills. So it does seem that he treats Buffy differently. I think perhaps it's as

pocochina suggests and that he's feminist in principle, but entrenched in the paternalism of the Council, which (in combination with his fatherly affection) makes him treat Buffy differently.

From:

Does Giles treat Buffy like a child in S7, though? Or does he treat her like an adult who, in his eyes, is making fatally-flawed decisions and refusing to listen to rational arguments about them? Yes, there's a difference. ;-)

I'm not defending his actions in LMPTM, by the way - I think they were outrageous and wrong - but you can't deny that he tried repeatedly, in multiple episodes, to convince Buffy she was making a mistake in trusting Spike, and only resorted to direct action as a last resort. He believed he was doing the right thing.

I won't argue that the writers choosing to write a story that involves a man questioning a woman's judgement is not a particularly feminist message to send. However, if a man thinks a woman is wrong about something, it's not necessarily a sign that he's sexist and anti-feminist. He might just think that she's wrong. :-)

From:

I won't argue that the writers choosing to write a story that involves a man questioning a woman's judgement is not a particularly feminist message to send. However, if a man thinks a woman is wrong about something, it's not necessarily a sign that he's sexist and anti-feminist. He might just think that she's wrong. :-)

I'd say given Giles' role as The Only Watcher Left (at least for the purposes of the show), LMPTM is intentionally meant to be Giles Being Paternalistic which, yes, is sexist. A man can think a woman is wrong about something, but when he goes behind her back to try to take the decision out of her hands? I'm not gonna leap to a gender-blind defense of him.

From:

Well, paternalistic in the sense of "like a male parent" is obvious, given the title of the episode. It's about Buffy and Spike both cutting their parental ties and moving forward.

I'm not gonna leap to a gender-blind defense of him

I wouldn't expect you to, as long as you don't entirely rule it out either. :-)

If Giles's first action had been to assume Buffy was wrong and go behind he back to undermine her, that would be one thing. But it isn't: he tries logical argument and appeals to her reason multiple times before giving up and coming up with his (murderous) plan.

I don't think it's necessarily obvious that he decides on that course of action because "Buffy's a woman and therefore irrational, and I must take charge because I'm a man" as opposed to "Buffy's under a lot of stress for entirely understandable reasons, given the upcoming apocalypse, but unfortunately it's badly affecting her judgement and she's going to get us all killed."

From:

But sexist intent isn't necessary for sexist action. His action in LMPTM? Sexist. And when determining a character's feminist cred, it's their actions that count.

From:

His action in LMPTM? Sexist.

If we assume that Giles honestly believes that Buffy's trust of Spike is fatally misguided and is going to get lots of innocent Potentials killed - what would be the feminist thing for him to do? (Remembering that he's already tried persuasion, logic and argument, without success.).

From:

The feminist (and decent) thing to do is defer to the woman who he had left a year ago so that she could become independent. It sucks sometimes but subordinates have to follow their general. Giles can't take backsies on the whole Make Buffy Independent thing of S6 just because he doesn't like her decisions.

From:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer would have been a very different show if this idea that "You should always defer to the judgement of the person in authority, even if you think they're dangerously wrong" had been followed through in all cases. Just saying...

From:

I don't see how that's relevant as I never said anything about this being the proper course of action in all cases.

In this case, though...

In S7, after the point where Giles has given up parental control of his own volition ostensibly to help Buffy's independence. In S7, after the atmosphere of war is established and Buffy takes the general role. Giles, a subordinate, takes issue with one of Buffy's decisions. He voices those concerns. Buffy disregards his concerns and continues on. Well, it sucks to be Giles, but she's the leader. She's the leader as a direct result of six previous years of feminist development. You can't just backstep because you think she's doing something stupid. That's like giving women the vote, but then casting aside their ballots when you think they're voting for the wrong person.

And, besides, I don't think it needs to be pointed out that Buffy was right about Spike. He didn't become a threat to the Potentials and he was integral in the final fight with the First.. So, yeah, Giles should have deferred to her.

From:

I never said anything about this being the proper course of action in all cases

But how else do I interpret "Well, it sucks to be Giles but she's the leader"? Honestly, your argument here seems dangerously close to saying, "Any man who disagrees with a woman or challenges her authority is, by definition, being sexist" - which seems more like the parody of feminism put about by its opponents than anything I recognise.

Sure, that begs the question of how do you tell if a man's disagreeing with a woman because he assumes that being male, he's automatically right and has to have the last word, as opposed to because he's considered the situation carefully and decided that in this particular instance she's just wrong. What would the two differnet scenarios look like on screen? I suggest, though, that all the factors you list yourselfabout Giles previously buiding up Buffy suggest that in this case, it's the second.

I don't think it needs to be pointed out that Buffy was right about Spike.

Yes, but that's not relevant to the point. Giles doesn't know that the show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer rather than Giles the Watcher; he's making decisions based on his understanding of the situation rather than his meta-knowledge that the writers will give Buffy protagonist privilege. It's not like she's never made mistakes in the past.

From:

Honestly, your argument here seems dangerously close to saying, "Any man who disagrees with a woman or challenges her authority is, by definition, being sexist"

Nope. Only if they go behind her back and try to kill someone despite her express orders to the contrary. Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired (by a man, no less) is sexist.

Giles disagreeing with Buffy =/= LMPTM.

Edited Date: Aug. 1st, 2010 11:11 pm (UTC)

From:

Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired (by a man, no less) is sexist.

I think this is a really important point. It's not just that Giles disagreed with her. It's not just that he took away her authority when he didn't like her decisions.

It's that he's decided Buffy's judgment was impaired because she's a silly girl who can't think straight when she likes a guy. She can't possibly have feelings for Spike AND have her priorities straight at the same time. So Giles, who is much more clear-headed and not at all biased in his dislike of Spike, takes it upon himself to make the decisions for her. That's pretty sexist if you ask me.

From:

Yep. Word.

I always need you around to translate Gabs-speak.

From:

he's decided Buffy's judgment was impaired because she's a silly girl who can't think straight when she likes a guy.

Is there any evidence that he believes that Buffy is, in general, a silly girl who can't think straight when she like a guy? Does he have a history of making such assumptions? Because if so yes, that would be sexist. But if he just believes that in this specific case she's wrong, then no it isn't.

Or to put it another way: no, disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired is NOT sexist. It would only be sexist if you assumed their judgement is impaired because they're a woman, surely?

From:

Nope, sorry. You're ignoring the societal context and acting as though sexism is something that happens only in specific situations that meet a list of criteria. "Women are irrational and blinded by their emotions" is a prominent sexist stereotype. I'm just going to quote Gabs here, because she's all pithy and stuff:

"Girls are very strange creatures. They're driven by their feelings, first and foremost. Rational thought is beyond them, and it's near impossible for them to make logical decisions. Especially when concerning love, they're always blinded by their emotions. Thus, their decision-making capabilities simply cannot be trusted."

This is exactly what Giles is doing. I don't need to prove a history of sexist behavior to call Giles' behavior in this situation sexist. He's not acting in a vacuum. He's drawing on a sexist stereotype.

Let's try this again. Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that her judgment is impaired IS sexist. It's especially sexist when one is assuming her judgment is impaired by her feelings for a man. A man thinking he can do better in the situation because he is "rational" or "impartial" (even though he is clearly not) is also sexist.

Edited Date: Aug. 2nd, 2010 12:17 am (UTC)

From:

Women are irrational and blinded by their emotions" is a prominent sexist stereotype

Yes it is. But really, can't you see the difference between a sweeping generalisation like that, and an argument about a specific individual in a specific place and time? Honestly? Do you think that the only reason a man would ever think a woman was acting irrationally is because he's blinded by sexism?

From: